Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_Mister Scratch]

So, you are not denying either of the two statements?

Of course I deny them, silly fellow.

Well, the, can you clear something up for me?

1. Did you pass the "Metcalfe is Butthead" article to peer reviewers?
1a. If 'yes,' were the peer reviewers in on the joke?
1b. If 'no,' how often do non-peer reviewed articles make it into FARMS publications?

2. If you are unaware of the jokes Hamblin claims to "always" submit to you in his FARMS articles, doesn't that therefore mean that many of them have made it into print? Including, perhaps, the 2nd Watson Letter?

[_Daniel Peterson]

1. Did you pass the "Metcalfe is Butthead" article to peer reviewers?

Yup.

1a. If 'yes,' were the peer reviewers in on the joke?

Nope.

1b. If 'no,' how often do non-peer reviewed articles make it into FARMS publications?

Never.

2. If you are unaware of the jokes Hamblin claims to "always" submit to you in his FARMS articles, doesn't that therefore mean that many of them have made it into print?

If that had actually occurred, yes, that is what it would mean. I don't believe that it's actually occurred.

Including, perhaps, the 2nd Watson Letter?

Extraordinarily unlikely.

[_Mister Scratch]

1. Did you pass the "Metcalfe is Butthead" article to peer reviewers?

Yup.

1a. If 'yes,' were the peer reviewers in on the joke?

Nope.

If you don't mind my asking: Why would you send such a document to peer reviewers?

2. If you are unaware of the jokes Hamblin claims to "always" submit to you in his FARMS articles, doesn't that therefore mean that many of them have made it into print?

If that had actually occurred, yes, that is what it would mean. I don't believe that it's actually occurred.

Given what he said in his message, I would advise you to check with him. And you had better hurry before some critic spots it first.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why would you send such a document to peer reviewers?

It was and is a good article. (I know you disagree, but I don't take your opinion very seriously on this matter.) The acrostic was invisible unless pointed out, and did not substantially affect the content even of the sentences in which it appeared, let alone of the article as a whole. Thus, it was irrelevant to the peer review process.

[_Dr. Shades]

Just so the propper people/person are/is atributed for their research, all of this is from the June 1994 issue of UTLM's Salt Lake City Messenger (Rabbi Hamblin's "Computer message," Brent Metcalfe's reply, and the "news clipping" [elipses included]).

Here is the online version of the June 1994 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger so you can read the above for yourself.

[_Trevor]

I'm happy to provide you with such rich entertainment. If my life has no other purpose than this, in the end, perhaps I will still have justified my existence.

What a sad commentary on your life. ;-)

[_Trevor]

I know you disagree, but I don't take your opinion very seriously on this matter.

That's OK, the thought is mutual.

[_beastie]

So Hamblin "always includes a joke or two for Dan's enjoyment", yet Dan professes complete ignorance of this practice.

Somebody ain't telling the truth. I don't know who, but there are two possibilities.

I will say I find it extraordinarily odd that the editor of the piece that became infamous due to the Butthead joke apparently wasn't interested enough in the episode to even read Hamblin's explanation of the matter. I know that if something occurred at work that made it look like I wasn't doing my job, I'd be very interested in learning the details of the episode.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So Hamblin "always includes a joke or two for Dan's enjoyment", yet Dan professes complete ignorance of this practice.

Somebody ain't telling the truth. I don't know who, but there are two possibilities.

The simplest, and the apparent default position on this board, is that I'm lying.

I will say I find it extraordinarily odd that the editor of the piece that became infamous due to the Butthead joke apparently wasn't interested enough in the episode to even read Hamblin's explanation of the matter. I know that if something occurred at work that made it look like I wasn't doing my job, I'd be very interested in learning the details of the episode.

I'm sure I read the piece. It's been fifteen years, though, and I didn't need to read anything in order to know what happened in that incident.

Bill has a great sense of humor, very ironic, and we trade jokes (and barbs) most days of the week -- on everything from national politics to the Near East to university politics to movies to Church callings to, yes, critics of the Church. He's great at puns and word plays and parodies, and I see many of them.

But l'affaire de Butthead was sui generis.

(Of course, I'm probably lying.)

[_beastie]

Hamblin's statement:

"I am writing to apologize for my private practical joke. Whenever I write a paper Dan Petersen [Daniel C. Peterson] will be editing, I always include a joke or two for his enjoyment — fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. The acrostic was simply a light-hearted joke for Dan's amusement...."

Dan's statement:

I haven't seen Bill's statement.

I don't remember seeing any such "little jokes."

I don't know what he's allegedly talking about.

Dan,

Going by these comments, one of you either has a remarkably bad memory, near Alzheimer's level, or one of you is lying.

However, now you have made a slight change:

Bill has a great sense of humor, very ironic, and we trade jokes (and barbs) most days of the week -- on everything from national politics to the Near East to university politics to movies to Church callings to, yes, critics of the Church. He's great at puns and word plays and parodies, and I see many of them.

Does or does not Hamblin always include little jokes in his pieces that you will be editing for your amusement? You made one clear statement - no, you've never seen such jokes - which means Hamblin was lying when he said he always includes little jokes for your amusement. Or you were lying when you said you've never seen them and have no idea what he's talking about. Now you've changed and say you "see many of them" (omitting whether or not you see them in the articles he's submitted to you for editing).

But, of course, the problem is we're malicious people who like to unjustly accuse you of lying. The problem couldn't possibly be you can't keep your own story straight.